Jordan Peterson Wants To Keep His Faith Private But Also Make A Profit Off It
Jordan Peterson still wants to keep his beliefs private. Fine, but then he should stop using God to line his coffers.Jordan Peterson still wants to keep his beliefs private. Fine, but then he should stop using God to line his coffers.
Exclusive: Hidden-camera footage captures Talarico’s pastor saying evangelical Christians are 'not smart' and comparing Trump to Hitler
Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D) has made no secret of the impact that Jim Rigby, the pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, has had on his thinking.
Talarico, the Texas Democrat now battling state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) for a seat in the U.S. Senate, told the New York Times, for instance, that Rigby was one of “the biggest influences on [him] as a Christian, as a human being.”
'This false shepherd managed to deny virtually every key doctrine of Christianity in less than two minutes.'
“He is my pastor in every sense of the word,” added Talarico, a part-time Presbyterian seminarian who has fought to keep the Bible out of school; attempted to use Scripture to justify abortion; taken money from an associate of dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein; concern-mongered about traditional Christian views; and voted against sparing kids from sex-rejection mutilations.
Hidden-camera footage exclusively obtained by Blaze News appears to show that the pastor who shaped Talarico’s worldview doesn’t think too highly of evangelical Christians.
In a video dated Aug. 30, Rigby was asked by a person off-camera, “What’s wrong with evangelical Christians? Like, how do they read what they read, they claim what they claim?”
RELATED: Talarico's pivot from 'God is nonbinary' is all just an act, admits minister at his church
The woke pastor says in response, according to the video, “My guess is that they’re people who are just not that smart in, like, abstract thinking, which is where a lot of the liberal stuff and the principles of human rights and all that stuff comes up — it’s like they just, it doesn’t show up on their radar.”
“They panic when that stuff is laid out in front of them,” Rigby stated further, according to the video. “They know there’s something they’re not seeing. It’s like they have black and white vision and somebody’s showing them [a] color photograph or something like that.”
Rigby appears to believe that President Donald Trump and even Adolf Hitler have exploited evangelicals and their allegedly simple way of thinking for political gain, claiming in the video that "what Hitler did and what Trump is doing is play off of that."
The purported Christian pastor apparently complained further about evangelicals’ beliefs in the supernatural, specifically in hell, angels, and demons, suggesting that such beliefs are irrational.
“The church is a huge part of the problem — teaching people from the cradle that things are true because you believe them,” Rigby says, according to the video.
“A belief in hell shuts everything down, because when you think that you could be tortured for all eternity, and you believe in demons and angels and stuff like this, you can’t stay rational for long.”
Rigby adds, according to the video, “If you think that supernatural beings are affecting things, good logic wouldn’t make any sense.”
According to the most recent Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study, 27% of adults in Texas identify as evangelical Protestants.
Evangelicals are, however, hardly the only Christians who believe in the existence of hell, angels, and demons.
A 2021 Pew survey found that 62% of all American adults and 69% of all American Christians believe in hell. A 2023 Gallup survey found that 69% of Americans believe in angels and 58% believe in the devil.
“It's not surprising an open and avowed heretic like James Talarico goes to a church led by fellow heretics,” BlazeTV host Steve Deace said in a statement to Blaze News, after reviewing the footage. “What is surprising, though, is how this false shepherd managed to deny virtually every key doctrine of Christianity in less than two minutes.”
“You have to be really committed to doctrines of demons and detesting Christ and His Word to display that level of deception masquerading as conviction,” added Deace.
Rigby has issued plenty of other remarks that Talarico might want to distance himself from in the final months of his campaign. The pastor, who expressed hope that Talarico would follow in his footsteps at St. Andrew’s, has, for instance, made headlines for calling for a “true jihad” at a pro-Palestine rally; rejected belief in a literal resurrection; repeatedly cast doubt on whether Christ rose from the dead; emphasized that he doesn’t “believe Christianity is the only way, or even the best way for many people”; and expressed discomfort with the use of the word “God.”
Rigby and the Talarico campaign did not respond to requests for comment from Blaze News.
While supportive of Talarico, his message, and his candidacy, Rigby noted earlier this year, “I do not speak for him and he owes no one an explanation for things I have said.”
Despite noting that they do not speak with one voice, Rigby’s influence on Talarico is unmistakable — particularly in his eagerness to criticize Christians and mainstream Christianity.
Talarico noted, for example, in a March 2021 episode of the “Activist Theology” podcast that despite always getting "drawn back" in, “I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity.”
Paxton has stressed that Talarico "is a threat to our values, our way of life, and the future of Texas."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The lion, the witch, and the worldview war
The internet already knows what to do with the news that Meryl Streep will voice Aslan in Greta Gerwig’s forthcoming “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew”: Get angry. It fits the logic of rage-bait: All publicity is good publicity.
There has already been plenty of fury. It is as if the creative team opened its first meeting by asking, “There is a huge built-in Christian audience for Narnia. How can we alienate it as quickly as possible?” But I want to ask the prior question: What exactly is “The Magician’s Nephew” about, and why can’t a radical leftist understand it?
The central problem in Narnia is not that the wrong group has power. It is rebellion against the good Creator.
That question is vital because director Greta Gerwig is not merely illustrating a book. She is interpreting one. And there is no such thing as interpretation without a worldview.
Netflix has scheduled Gerwig’s film for theatrical release on February 12, 2027, and streaming on April 2. Meryl Streep has been confirmed as Aslan’s voice. Gerwig says she wanted someone capable of communicating profundity, gravitas, pathos, joy, and childlike wonder. But neither Gerwig nor Netflix has said that Aslan has been rewritten as a lioness, so the claim that she has created a “translan” gets ahead of the evidence.
The controversy gives us an opportunity to return to Lewis and ask how we find a text’s meaning. The answer applies well beyond Narnia to the current cultural conflict.
“The Magician’s Nephew” begins with Digory and Polly discovering that Digory’s ridiculous Uncle Andrew has developed magical rings that can transport people between worlds. They arrive in the wonderfully strange Wood Between the Worlds, a quiet forest filled with pools. Each pool opens into another world.
Lewis was far ahead of Marvel’s multiverse.
Digory makes a spectacularly bad decision. In the dead world of Charn, he rings a forbidden bell and awakens Queen Jadis. We eventually learn that Jadis destroyed everyone in her world rather than surrender power. She used the “Deplorable Word,” annihilating Charn’s population and leaving herself as its solitary ruler.
That detail is important.
Jadis’ defining characteristic is not that she is a strong woman. Lewis gives us plenty of admirable women in his books. Her defining characteristic is autonomous will. She would rather destroy a world than acknowledge a limit on herself. In modern terms, Lewis wrote a third-wave feminist before the term existed.
RELATED: You can’t handle the movies anymore
Digory and Polly accidentally bring her to Earth. When they try to remove her, they end up transporting Jadis, Uncle Andrew, a cab driver, and his horse into another world.
They arrive at the beginning of Narnia, as Aslan creates it.
Lewis is hardly being subtle.
And this is where the current controversy becomes interesting.
Aslan is not simply a powerful lion who happens to be the good guy. Lewis explicitly rejected that reduction. He described Narnia as a “supposal”: What might Christ be like if there really were a world like Narnia and Christ entered that world to save it?
Lewis went farther: “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.”
That means an interpreter who approaches Narnia primarily through contemporary categories of gender, power, oppression, and liberation will see a different story from the one Lewis wrote.
This does not require sinister motives. It is simply how worldviews work. Culpability begins when an interpreter treats her worldview as a license to overwrite the text. Gerwig’s film has not yet been released, so its faithfulness to Lewis remains a question, not a verdict.
Show the same story to a Marxist, a Freudian, a Christian, and a postmodernist, and each will notice different things. The Marxist sees class. The Freudian sees repression. The postmodernist sees power. Lewis sees creation, fall, temptation, sin, judgment, grace, and redemption.
The danger comes when the interpreter stops interpreting the author and starts rewriting him. For the radical leftist, words no longer disclose an objective meaning; they become material to rearrange in service of a political goal. On Lewis’ terms, that is sinful autonomy: Reality itself becomes an obstacle to the will.
Apply the same interpretive habit to the Constitution, marriage, or gender. Fixed meaning and objective reality become obstacles to the desired result. As a colleague of mine argues, the impulse is to “burn it down” and impose one’s will on the rest of us.
And “The Magician’s Nephew” may be the worst possible Narnia book in which to make that mistake, because it rebukes autonomous power wielded by the creature against the Creator. It shows the barrenness of Jadis’ feminism: autonomous will severed from the Creator and therefore incapable of creating anything.
Consider Jadis again. A modern interpretation might reduce the conflict to rival forms of power. Here is the imposing lion claiming authority over a new world, and here is the formidable woman who refuses to submit.
But that completely misses Lewis.
RELATED: CS Lewis: Angry atheist surprised by God
Aslan and Jadis are not rival politicians competing to run Narnia. Aslan creates. Jadis consumes.
Aslan gives creatures their being. Jadis destroys creatures who interfere with her will.
Aslan establishes an order to which creatures belong. Jadis believes reality ought to bend to her desires.
That is why the Christian distinction between Creator and creature matters so much. The central problem in Narnia is not that the wrong group has power. It is rebellion against the good Creator.
Which brings us back to Meryl Streep.
I understand why Christians object to giving the voice of Lewis’ male Christ figure to a woman. Aslan’s identity is not arbitrary. Lewis chose a male lion, called him “he,” and made him a king as his imaginative answer to the question of Christ entering another world.
But I am even more interested in what Aslan will say than in what Aslan will sound like.
The proper test of the adaptation is straightforward: Will Gerwig allow Lewis’ world to remain Lewis’ world?
Every artist interprets through a worldview. Faithfulness does not require pretending to have none. It requires humility: the willingness to enter another writer’s world without claiming the right to recreate its moral order.
I have seen the same conflict as a professor among radical activists. A teacher who denies the basic structure of reality cannot teach students to become wise or find meaning.
The same humility is required of us. We do not enter God’s world as its creators.
A Christian guide to trolling without sinning
Donald Trump did not invent political trolling, but he may be its most gifted modern practitioner. His opponents still do not understand the tactic, which is why he runs circles around them. To understand trolling, we must see the larger ideological conflict of our time.
For Christians, trolling poses a serious moral question. It can seem cruel: a digital version of poking someone until he explodes, then laughing at the explosion. It also often involves deception. Does that violate the Ninth Commandment? How can deliberate provocation be reconciled with Christ’s command to “love your neighbor”?
When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll.
The answer begins by defining the term carefully.
The internet term “trolling” appears to draw on fishing, not the monster under the bridge. A fisherman drags bait through the water and waits for a fish to bite. A political troll places rhetorical bait before an opponent and waits for an angry, thoughtless response. The Oxford English Dictionary defines trolling as “posting antagonistic or disingenuous messages to provoke a hostile or annoyed response” and more broadly as behavior “intended to provoke or deceive.”
Political trolling is public mockery meant to elicit a response that exposes a contradiction, wastes an opponent’s time, and strips an ideology of undeserved authority. Legitimate trolling therefore presupposes that some public figures and ideologies deserve public mockery.
An effective troll identifies a contradiction in a public figure or ideology, frames it provocatively, and waits. The target becomes flustered and responds thoughtlessly, confirming the original criticism. Rather than merely accusing an opponent of hypocrisy, the troll induces him to demonstrate it before an audience.
This is not the same as insulting strangers for entertainment. Nor is trolling a license to lie, defame, threaten, or mock private suffering. It is more like misdirection in war or sports, used to confuse an opponent and reveal his weaknesses. No one accuses a quarterback of lying when he fakes a handoff, and no one expects a general to warn the enemy about a surprise attack.
Sun Tzu taught that warfare depends on knowing both your enemy and yourself. Schopenhauer cataloged the rhetorical tricks people use to appear right. The troll draws on both insights, arranging the contest so the opponent reveals his weaknesses to the public and loses respect.
RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image
Christians recognize the distinction between just and unjust wars. Not every use of force is murder, and refusing to defend the innocent is not an act of love.
Rhetorical warfare is also real. Words can deceive, intimidate, indoctrinate, and destroy reputations. Institutions use language to disguise coercion as compassion and discrimination as inclusion.
Not every Christian is called to fight a kinetic war, and not every Christian is called to fight a rhetorical one. Some lack the temperament, position, or skill for public confrontation. That is no disgrace. A soldier without discipline endangers his own side, and so does a would-be internet warrior with a social media account and three cups of coffee.
But Christians cannot pretend that no conflict exists. Christian and anti-Christian visions of God, humanity, sexuality, justice, freedom, and authority compete for control of our institutions. They cannot both prevail. The question is not whether society will be governed by a moral vision, but which moral vision will govern it.
The Bible does not condemn every use of ridicule. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, suggesting that their god might be occupied or asleep. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed tombs.” Public teachers promoting public falsehoods were exposed so their teaching and authority would lose the audience’s respect.
We can identify a pattern for legitimate trolling. Its proper target is a public figure advancing a destructive ideology. Its method is ridicule aimed at hypocrisy. Its immediate purpose is to provoke a revealing response. Its true audience is not the target but the people watching. The goal is to protect the vulnerable from harmful ideologies that lead souls to perdition.
RELATED: Did Lindsay Clancy lose her mind — or her free will?
Publicly exposing the absurdities of ideologies such as critical theory or LGBTQ activism gives those who might be led astray an opportunity to reconsider. Stripping an ideology of its unearned authority can turn the audience toward truth and away from leaders and systems that lead to destruction.
I am not recommending that everyone take up trolling. But we should not treat an ideological war as less consequential than a sporting contest, where teams talk smack and use fake plays and misdirection to win.
When opponents of Christianity seek to censor biblical teaching and replace it with Marxist dialectics and LGBTQ sexual ethics, exposing their public leaders to laughter and ridicule is part of the conflict. Their panicked responses can display their folly. The purpose is to protect the vulnerable and persuade those who recognize the emptiness of the anti-Christian position.
Love of neighbor does not require helping a hypocrite preserve his disguise. Sometimes love requires argument, and argument requires confrontation. Trolling can protect your neighbor from wolves in sheep’s clothing. When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll — and the patience to let your opponent prove your point.
‘Don’t be evil’ may be dead, but ‘don’t be Frankenstein’ is alive
Some still remember when Google defined itself by a simple motto: “Don’t be evil.” When Google reorganized under Alphabet in 2015, the new parent company adopted the somehow less confidence-inspiring, “Do the right thing.” Another phrase with a lower bar also made the rounds — “to organize the world’s information” — but rest assured, that was never the motto. It was simply ... uh ... the mission statement.
Anyway ...
The AI doomers’ strange brand of apocalypticism is: Let’s create an evil god so we can save the world from it.
It took until this week for some of the most powerful voices in tech policy to circle back explicitly to a prime directive: Avoid hellacious acts. For that, thank the AI doomers, whose strange brand of apocalypticism — let’s create an evil god so we can save the world from it — finally breached technology insider-dom and splashed across the political timeline.
The high-stakes soap opera has, as usual, deeper currents than the news feed can convey. But the key development is that the White House and its allies moved at warp speed to establish a few basic touchstones that take us back to the good old days of not being evil.
Trump has received most of the attention for memeing his stern-looking self above the caption “Americanism, Not Effective Altruism!” But his vice president captured the matter in a single line that’s tough to beat. “If you’re building Frankenstein,” he said, “stop!"
Note the emphasis. Trying to build an evil god — for instance, one with a statistically nonzero chance of wiping out the human race — is fortunately still considered axiomatically evil. But JD Vance’s reference underscores that trying to build a "new man," even with the best of intentions, is also evil.
According to the doomers, the best way to save the world from evils they might create is for the rest of us to give them some form of planetary governing control. Vance endorsed a more commonsense approach: The best way to spare the world from evils you’re responsible for is to ... not do them in the first place.
RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image
The vice president may, like every one of his predecessors in living memory, carry a pronounced partisan identity. But his folksy-clever line echoes in anti-doomer rhetoric now blaring from the industry’s rooftops. Microsoft, of all places, recently published its own rulebook for what not to build. On X, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman promoted the new “Humanist AI Code of Conduct,” which insists AI “is not conscious and should not be designed to imitate consciousness. It should,” Microsoft avows, “be engineered to avoid representing as though it has feelings, subjective preferences, or intrinsic motivation.”
Microsoft also flatly states: “We reject the pursuit of legal personhood, or the idea that models might deserve welfare, or be entitled to rights.” No Frankensteins here!
Or rather, no Frankenstein’s monsters — which means no Dr. Frankensteins running amok in the lab.
At Palantir, outspoken CTO Shyam Sankar made a similar point in a 2025 interview. “I think the secularists in Silicon Valley are filling the God-shaped hole in their heart with AGI,” Sankar said.
“The people who have religion are the most skeptical” of the doomers’ build-a-god-and-save-the-world-from-it thesis — which, yes, does itself resemble an inverted religion. For “the people who are kind of transhumanists,” Sankar concluded, “it becomes what they wish were true.”
Even Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, not known for Bible-thumping, recently struck an economic note with more than a whiff of spirituality.
“If we’re not confident about the safety of the products, like all companies ... if you build a product or a service and you’re not confident in its functionality, capability, or safety, then don’t release it,” he said. "And so that’s a very obvious thing to do. You pace yourself until you are confident you’re releasing something that the market would appreciate. The market forces are already there. We don’t need any new laws. We don’t need new regulations.”
RELATED: Poll: Most think AI could do this to humanity — but don't agree on what to do about it
Translation: Hear a little voice in your head, or more likely, your heart? Whispering, “No, this product is bad”? Don’t take it to market.
Turns out, you can just not do things!
Of course, Huang’s logic is a bit deceptive. We would like to believe the market will punish bad people for taking bad things to market, but that is not always how it works. As we speak, present-day Dr. Frankensteins are transplanting human brain organoids into mice engineered to lack most of their cerebral cortex, allowing the human tissue to occupy much of the vacant space and wire into the animals’ nervous systems.
No, doctors! Bad! Evil! Don’t!
Except they are. In the end, it matters that people examine their own hearts for evil before looking elsewhere and pointing fingers. But spiritual insistence alone will not keep society on the rails. It is not enough to scowl at our mad doctors, however good their intentions, as their creations erode the boundaries around our sacred human bodies and being — supercomputers or no.
Glenn Beck: There's a reason they don't want you thinking as an individual
The left is determined to divide people into competing groups of oppressors and oppressed — and Christian apologist Frank Turek knows why.
“Marxism is all about the group, whereas Christianity is all about the individual. … That's the focus of the war on reality right now,” Turek tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.
“They want people to identify everybody by an identity group,” he explains. “‘What identity group are you in?’ And if you are part of that collective, you’re oppressed. And if you’re not, you’re automatically an oppressor.”
“We’re not judging people individually any more,” he says. “We’re judging people by what? Even non-behavioral identity groups that they’re in. ‘Oh, you’re white, Glenn. You’re a bad guy. Oh, you’re a man. You’re a heterosexual. You’re a citizen of the U.S. You’re a Christian, Glenn. You’re an oppressor.’”
“But if you have the opposite qualities, you’re automatically oppressed,” he adds.
“It’s the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” Glenn agrees. “You must destroy that God because that’s the personal God. That’s the first personal, and the only personal, God — the one true God.”
“And so all of this — this is why people hate Jews and why they’re trying to get Christians to say, ‘We don’t need to remember that Jesus was a Jew.’ Because if you can get ... yourself away from the Old Testament, now you don’t have the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob any more,” he continues. “And all of that falls apart.”
“You must have that. That’s why there’s this war. Everything boils down to that: the God of the individual,” he adds.
Turek agrees, noting that “it’s also why Marxism dispenses with the individual.”
“They think the state is eternal,” he says.
“Whereas we Christians know the state isn’t eternal,” he continues. “It’s individuals that are eternal, and they’re going to be judged individually.”
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image
Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, recently offered a reassuring vision of our technological future. Artificial intelligence, he predicted, will soon monitor police body cameras, security cameras, doorbell cameras, and vehicle dashboards. “Citizens will be on their best behavior,” he explained, “because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on.”
One is tempted to ask whether “best behavior” includes declining to construct an electronic surveillance state. Presumably, the algorithm will decide.
The surveillance state does not make good citizens. It makes practiced actors.
Ellison envisions AI supervising police officers as well as ordinary citizens. If an officer does something wrong, the system will detect the problem and report it to the appropriate authorities. Drones may even replace police cars during high-speed pursuits. The drone will follow the suspect while artificial intelligence records the proceedings and analyzes everyone involved.
Ellison, who is an atheist, wants an all-knowing being that is perfectly good and will judge our behavior.
It is difficult not to admire the efficiency. We have finally devised a deity suitable for the modern secular mind: omnipresent, nearly omniscient, and conveniently owned by a corporation, with promises of suitable oversight.
For generations, atheists and secularists have assured us that civilized people can dispense with belief in a God who sees our actions, judges our conduct, and holds us accountable. The notion of divine judgment was dismissed as primitive, oppressive, and psychologically unhealthy.
Enlightened people, we were told, do not need the threat of an all-seeing eye to behave morally.
Now, having removed God from heaven, our technological elites propose installing His replacement on every lamppost.
The secular project promised liberation from divine surveillance. Its culmination may be a camera that never blinks, connected to a machine that never sleeps, operated by authorities who never admit error.
Of course, artificial intelligence is not God. It is not even intelligent in the full human sense. It has no conscience, understands no moral law, and possesses no wisdom. It processes information according to purposes and standards supplied by human beings.
RELATED: The 9/11 generation may be building AI’s 9/11 moment
This creates a slight difficulty: If AI is to report “bad behavior,” someone must first tell it what bad behavior is.
Who will do that?
The programmers? Oracle executives? Government agencies? More AI? The same institutions that cannot define a woman may soon be entrusted with defining acceptable behavior for every citizen.
AI can recognize a face, track a vehicle, and perhaps identify a raised voice. It cannot tell us why assault is wrong, why citizens possess rights, or why the government should be restrained in its treatment of them.
The atheist insists that the universe contains no transcendent moral order. Human beings are products of impersonal matter, motion, and chance. Yet he continues speaking of justice, dignity, equality, and human rights as if these were eternal truths rather than temporary preferences produced by an unusual arrangement of atoms.
Having denied a Lawgiver above the state, he inevitably looks to the state to serve as lawgiver.
The God of Scripture sees everything, but His omniscience is joined to perfect knowledge, righteousness, and justice. He knows not merely what we do but why we do it. He judges the heart as well as the outward act.
Most importantly, God is not accountable to a government contractor, a political party, or Oracle’s quarterly earnings report because God is the standard for what is good, righteous, and holy.
RELATED: When government breaks the law, can you even sue?
AI surveillance offers omnipresence without wisdom, judgment without righteousness, and accountability without any objective account of the good. It cannot produce virtue. At most, it can produce outward conformity in people who know they are being watched.
A man who refrains from stealing because theft is wrong possesses a measure of virtue. A man who refrains because six cameras and a drone are recording him possesses a measure of caution. The surveillance state does not make good citizens. It makes practiced actors.
Nor does recording everything solve the oldest political problem: Who watches the watchers? AI will report citizens to “the appropriate person,” Ellison tells us. This formulation is meant to be comforting, though history offers few reasons to assume that the person receiving unlimited information about the population will remain permanently appropriate.
The atheist rejected God because he did not want an authority above man. He is now constructing an artificial authority beneath man — but controlled by a small number of particularly powerful men. That is simply a transfer of divine attributes to institutions conspicuously lacking divine character.
We were told that when God disappeared, mankind would come of age. Instead, mankind immediately began shopping for cameras.
The choice is not between accountability and freedom from accountability. Every society will hold its members answerable to some standard. The real question is whether that standard rests upon a moral law higher than rulers or upon whatever rules the rulers program into their machines.
A God who judges governments as well as citizens is a barrier to tyranny. An AI system operated by the government is an instrument of it.
Our secular technologists have discovered that a society cannot survive unless people believe their actions are seen and judged. They have merely concluded that God’s principal defect was that He could not be purchased from Oracle.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com